For self rated:
Don't beat your opponents too bad, play left hand if you are righty. Let them get 5,6 games to avoid getting DQed until National. No DQ in National.

For B,C rated:
If you are OK to be bumped up at end of year, just play your best in all matches.
If you don't want to be bumped up, it is OK to play your best in the beginning of the season since ntrp rating depends more upon the last couple of matches. Need to tank at the end of season, e.g. have close game in region/playoff/sectional/national. Especially having a close game against low ntrp rating player is very helpful.

Path 1) You only need to play 2 regular season matches to qualify for playoffs .. In our section one of those could be a forfeit, so you really only need to play one match to be playoff eligible. .. It is hard to get 3 strikes if you have only played 1 match.

but the problem with path 1 is that you have to keep playoff matches close as to not accumulate strikes.

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

Click to expand...

I don't believe strikes are based on your current dynamic rating, but instead your match rating for a given match. If this is correct, this strategy doesn't help as a given result will be a strike regardless of your rating at the time of the match. e.g. if you are a playing in a 3.5 league and managed to have a "low 3.5" rating, say 3.1, if you go out and win 6-1,6-1 over a strong 3.5 that is about to be bumped, say a 3.55, it is going to be a strike. The fact that your current rating is so low just makes it more obvious that you are sandbagging.

Now, if you are simply referring to how C or B rated players can sandbag, you are correct. You want your rating entering playoffs to be as low as possible so that you can go win matches in playoffs but give yourself a better chance to not get bumped up at the end of the year.

I was under the impression that a strike is a strike...not a "kinda of strike thing". In other words, it wouldn't matter if I lost to a low rated player at 4.0. If I turn around and beat 3 bench mark players with a self rating of 4.0...I'm out of there. Woodrow? Others? Do you have any insight on this?

Path 1) You only need to play 2 regular season matches to qualify for playoffs .. In our section one of those could be a forfeit, so you really only need to play one match to be playoff eligible. .. It is hard to get 3 strikes if you have only played 1 match.

but the problem with path 1 is that you have to keep playoff matches close as to not accumulate strikes.

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

spot, that was my thought at one point too, but I changed my mind after additional research and some information from others on TT.

Some documents from the USTA use language that would seem to imply it is the "current dynamic rating", i.e. the result after the dynamic rating from the match is averaged with the prior dynamic ratings. For example:

"If a player’s dynamics reaches the DQ Zone three times (each dynamic that reaches the DQ Zone is called a strike) then the player strikes out of the level and is moved to the next highest level."

Also:

"24. What is a strike and how do I get one? Each time a player’s dynamic rating exceeds the maximum tolerance for the level, he or she automatically earns a “strike.”"

But neither of these is perfectly clear that it is in fact the averaged dynamic rating and not the match dynamic rating, the language is a bit ambiguous.

In it J_R_B clearly states that it is the individual match rating that is used. We also know from this thread and others that 6-0,6-0 wins can count as strikes and while there is evidence now that 6-0,6-0 matches are counted for rating purposes, we know they weren't in the past and if they weren't used and it is the averaged dynamic rating that results in a strike, that wouldn't make sense.

Last, because we know the USTA does try to avoid making it so players can game the system, it wouldn't make any sense to use the averaged dynamic rating for strikes for the very reason that someone could throw a match to get their rating low so they could win their next match and not get a strike.

What I said came directly from a usta official...but it was years ago. We exchanged a bunch of emails because they had dq'd our best player at the time. She informed me at the time that if you beat a bench mark player and you are self rated, you would get a strike. In this case, he beat the same guy twice at locals. So he had 2 strikes going into state. What I didn't like was they let him play the whole state tourney and he got his 3rd strike at the first round of state. Then they went back and took 1 line from each of our matches...but because we had beat everyone down 5-0 and 4-1 we still won state. So it may not be that way now, but it sure as hell was back then. If I didn't get an understanding of nothing else I did that strike nonsense. We even opted not to go to sectionals because she told us that we could be dq'd there as well. We weren't willing to take vacation and pay them 200 something bucks to attend only to get there and possibly have 3 or 4 more guys dq'ed. We were new to the sport back then so it was all new to us, but we had enough sense to see that it was a f'ked up system and not to put any more money into it at that time.

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

Last, because we know the USTA does try to avoid making it so players can game the system, it wouldn't make any sense to use the averaged dynamic rating for strikes for the very reason that someone could throw a match to get their rating low so they could win their next match and not get a strike.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that people do not do this? THis is my biggest problem with going off of "team wins" rather than individual wins for deciding playoffs- there are too many matches where someone could lose on purpose to manipulate their rating.

It is possible to lose a match and still generate a strike. How would that be possible to do if it went only on the individual match result?

I know people do this to keep from being bumped up, and if the system worked as you describe (strikes only when the averaged dynamic rating exceeds the threshold) I'm sure they would do it to avoid strikes.

But that is my exact point, that because it is such an obvious loophole to avoid strikes, I doubt the USTA would implement it this way. A more reasonable way to do it is to have strikes occur when individual match dynamic ratings exceed a threshold. That way, it is harder to game the system.

People do this. The difference in what he is talking about here and strike appear to be two different things. If you are computer rated, you can game the system with this, but if you are self rated, you can't game the system like this the way it was explained to me.

For example, A self rated person could lose matches 1 ,3, 5...but if he wins 2 4 and 6 against bench mark players he is done. Matches 1 3 and 5 don't matter. You basically beat 3 bench mark players...furthermore, matches 2 4 and 6 could have been the same guy, you will still get dq'ed.

What makes you think that people do not do this? THis is my biggest problem with going off of "team wins" rather than individual wins for deciding playoffs- there are too many matches where someone could lose on purpose to manipulate their rating.

It is possible to lose a match and still generate a strike. How would that be possible to do if it went only on the individual match result?

Which is Bshit in and of itself. Just because a team made the playoffs doesn't mean they are great players. They are basically holding everyone to play off standard even though certain players may not have won a damn thing in playoffs or state. Individuals are basically rated according to the success of the team and not your individual play and then they wonder why people game the system.

I wouldn't bet any money as no one really knows what the rule is I don't think which is how they want it...but I'll tell this much....she sure seem to have a point. I swear I wish I had those emails or even her name. This conversation went on for the better part of a week and she got so frustrated with me asking questions he had the nerve to ask me how it impacted me that he got dq'ed. She was too stupid to see that A. He was on my team and B. I could get the same d*ck put to me at sectionals. It may not have been but she was the person that was trying to get us to send our 250 or whatever in to cover us at sectionals and we told her to kick rocks...it wasn't that important to us. She was an official at the time and told us exactly what I'm repeating to you now. I took her through it so much that the following year when we went back to state, she comes and finds us and ask for me by name...and wanted a hug and all this nonsense.

Ok, I take back what I said. It looks like all the guys that played in the playoffs have b ratings, and there is no way they could use this to disqualify people as some of the doubles players are by no means the stronger guys in that division.

It sounds like the system worked in the case you are talking about. If you have a team composed of 5+ self rated players who are easily winning their matches you probably are playing in the wrong division

I agree with this...because a person that is self rated is wasting his time playing usta. you basically have to watch who you play and beat. If you are self rated and go out and kick in some computer rated bench mark player...you are hosed up. That was part of my arguement to the woman. If it is already decided by computer who should win and who shouldn't, why are we even going to show up in SC or whereever and play. You've already decided who is going to win basically and if it doesn't go that way, you are going to punish the so called underdog. it's bs and that's why people do a lot of things they do, they need to clean their stuff up before trying to tell players to clean their acts up. Personally, I'm not going to go do 3 hours of reasearch on a team to figure out who is bench mark and who isn't but I know a lot of captains and teams that do and that's why they win.

I know people do this to keep from being bumped up, and if the system worked as you describe (strikes only when the averaged dynamic rating exceeds the threshold) I'm sure they would do it to avoid strikes.

But that is my exact point, that because it is such an obvious loophole to avoid strikes, I doubt the USTA would implement it this way. A more reasonable way to do it is to have strikes occur when individual match dynamic ratings exceed a threshold. That way, it is harder to game the system.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that you can get a strike by beating a bench mark player if your rating itself is computer generated. Their own computer has basically said you belong at said level for that year. It would be rediculous to have you paying fees to play say 4.0 and then when you start 3 matches in they say...wait...hold up...you are now 4.5. That would make no sense and I could see them catching hell for doing something like that. The only people I've ever really known to get dq'ed were self rated players. I've never heard of a computer rated player being dq'ed...not for play anyway. I can see you getting thrown out for calling the offical a mfker or something.lol

QUOTE=spot;7197492]chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I take back what I said. It looks like all the guys that played in the playoffs have b ratings, and there is no way they could use this to disqualify people as some of the doubles players are by no means the stronger guys in that division.

It sounds like the system worked in the case you are talking about. If you have a team composed of 5+ self rated players who are easily winning their matches you probably are playing in the wrong division

All of this "secret rating" stuff is what turns alot of people off to USTA, IMO.

Why not make the "rules" transparent?

There are always going to be guys who try and cheat the system. You might as well define the rules clearly and obviously.

A good example of a system that I think many folks think "works" is Ultimate Tennis (formerly known as "KSwiss").

A few cut and pastes from their rulebook------

Rating Calculation

Only matches that you complete in full against your assigned opponents count towards your player rating. Defaults, incomplete matches, retirements and averages do not represent your abilities and are removed from the rating calculation. Additionally, matches played against subs are removed because players can select their own subs and subs are not motivated to play as hard as if the match counted for them. The end result is a rating that shows a statistically pure picture of how competitive you are at your current skill level.

To calculate your rating - Find the difference in the league points earned between you and your opponent for each valid match. Sum the point difference and divide by the total number of valid matches. This is the number you see in the rating column on your standings page. During the season you will notice your rating will change after each match, and will not be finalized until the end of the season.

Sample Rating Calculation
Note: Week 3 is not factored into the rating due to a sub being used.

WK 1

WK 2

WK 3

WK 4

WK 5

WK 6

WK 7

Your Points

14

12

8P

4

14

12

12

Opponents Points

6

8

12S

14

8

7

8

Point Difference (rating)

+8

+4

N/A

-10

+6

+5

+4

17 is the total difference in points. 17 points divided by 6 valid matches equals a +2.8 end of season rating.

Scoring System

Our unique point system creates a playoff atmosphere all season long. Matches are more exciting, competitive and meaningful because every game counts.

You earn points based on the set scores of your matches. This encourages you to fight hard for every game and rewards you for close losses. Best of all, in the true spirit of tennis, no matter how far down you are you can always come back! Each season this creates exciting playoff point races that go down to the wire.

Our point system also dramatically improves the quality of your competition. You'll find our players will be competing at their appropriate level. Because our system measures the degree or strength of each win, skill levels can be adjusted with a far greater degree of accuracy. This produces a consistent level of competition which is the hallmark of Ultimate Tennis.

Point Calculations:
The winner receives: • 12 points for a 3 set win
• 14 points for a 2 set win
The loser receives:
One point for each game won in their two highest scoring sets. A player can receive up to a maximum of 8 points per match.

Regular Season
Move Up Requirements •If your rating is -5.4 to +5.4 you remain at your current level.
•If your rating is +5.5 to +9.9 you move up 1 level.
•If your rating is +10.0 or greater you move up 2 levels.
Move Down Requirements•If your rating is -5.5 to -9.9 you move down 1 level.
•If your rating is -10.0 or lower you move down 2 levels.
Move Down Exceptions•If you moved up to a new skill level in your last season of play and finished with a -5.5 rating or lower, you will remain at your current skill level. This rule is designed to allow your game to to adjust to the higher level of play.
•If you finished the season with a -5.5 rating or lower, but in the season prior earned a rating of -4.0 or higher, you will remain at your current level for one more season.

Playoff Move Up Requirements

If you advance to the following playoff rounds you will be moved up to the next highest skill level regardless of your end of season rating.
•Draw of 2 - champion moves up
•Draw of 4 - champion moves up
•Draw of 8 - champion moves up
•Draw of 16 - finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 32 - finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 64 - semi-finalist, finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 128 - semi-finalist, finalist and champion move up

The other good thing about this league setup is that there are sub categories within each level, especially in the "middle" levels (where a good number of players play, but where there can be significant differences). Specifically, there is not just a 3.5 level, there is a 3.5 and a 3.5-, a 4.0 and 4.0-, a 4.5 and a 4.5-, and a 6.0 and a 6.0- (there can be a big difference between the 6.0 and 6.0- as 6.0 is open so there are some former pros, Div I college, etc that can hang out there). The other levels (2.5, 3.0, 5.0, 5.5) do not have the - levels.

I like Ultimate a lot, but unfortunately their rating method is actually flawed a bit and leads to bias in players ratings increasing. I am actually involved in a discussion right now as many players in my ultimate area have been moved past the highest level where people actually play. The people here are just mid level 4.5 guys that slowly but surely have been moved to the next higher level each round where no one plays.

I like Ultimate a lot, but unfortunately their rating method is actually flawed a bit and leads to bias in players ratings increasing. I am actually involved in a discussion right now as many players in my ultimate area have been moved past the highest level where people actually play. The people here are just mid level 4.5 guys that slowly but surely have been moved to the next higher level each round where no one plays.

Click to expand...

If lots of people are being moved to the higher levels doesn't that work itself out?

Where do you live? In Atlanta there were 45 players at the highest level so it doesn't seem to be an issue here.

The highest rating is 5.5 which nobody plays in because they can't get a large enough interest level. I believe there is actual interest but people for some reason just don't sign up. This is why a group of us are actually organizing our own simple round robin league.

Yeah- Atlanta has a 6.0- and a 6.0 level past that which makes it easier. I'm pretty surprised they would do that... I thought that any league would simply cap it at the highest level that was still functional. They do a lot of stuff right so I'm surprised they are messing that up.

I'm actually surprised as well. Ultimate was by far my favorite league to play in. There were never large draws like 45 people, but when I started about 3 years ago there was about 30 in the 5.0 division. I believed their forced promotion for the finalist and runner up is what has caused the issue over time.

The first season I played the players were mostly strong 4.0s to mid level 4.5s in this division with most players at the low 4.5 level. It has now degraded to the mean at about the mid 4.0 level due to people being bumped up. I have also improved which has made this a bigger issue to the point that I wouldn't have played if I hadn't gotten bumped up.

Outside the fact that there is no singles. I like the way Alta does it. It's real simple. You move with your team and be done with it. None of this calculating you beat this person on this day and didn't beat this one on that day nonesense.

Yeah- Atlanta has a 6.0- and a 6.0 level past that which makes it easier. I'm pretty surprised they would do that... I thought that any league would simply cap it at the highest level that was still functional. They do a lot of stuff right so I'm surprised they are messing that up.

The highest rating is 5.5 which nobody plays in because they can't get a large enough interest level. I believe there is actual interest but people for some reason just don't sign up. This is why a group of us are actually organizing our own simple round robin league.

Click to expand...

Dang...I am at 5.5 in Ultimate tennis in my area and the guys in the top level here (6.0...open) would kick my @ss in a hurry. I played one guy who was a mid/low 6.0 in UT, played the best dang set in my life (literally) and was able to win 3 games. That was only because I came up to the net and surprised him a few games after he was blasting me all to h#$@ with his groundstrokes (which it was obvious I was no match for). If we had to play a second set, Id probably have vomited (my effort level in the first set was that high....LOL) and hed have adjusted his game and blown me off the court.

Without those 6.0- and 6.0 levels, I do agree that the league might breakdown a little bit. What would seem logical to happen was that, as there are obviously players in NorCal higher in talent than Ultimate Tennis 5.5, that the lower levels would start to get stacked with talent.

In reality, this might actually bring the UT rankings closer to NTRP. IMHO, the UT levels, although numerically identical in structure to NTRPs, are not equivalent in many cases, especially up towards the higher levels (the 3.5-4.0 range seems to match with NTRP decently). There is no way in h#@$ I am a USTA NTRP 5.5 , and I doubt most (all?) of the guys in the UT league at that level are either. A NTRP 5.5 would, I would think, be more or less playing open, which would be 6.0 in UT.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that you can get a strike by beating a bench mark player if your rating itself is computer generated. * Their own computer has basically said you belong at said level for that year. It would be rediculous to have you paying fees to play say 4.0 and then when you start 3 matches in they say...wait...hold up...you are now 4.5. That would make no sense and I could see them catching hell for doing something like that. The only people I've ever really known to get dq'ed were self rated players. I've never heard of a computer rated player being dq'ed...not for play anyway. ** I can see you getting thrown out for calling the offical a mfker or something.lol

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. *** So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

*Computer-rated and Benchmarked players do not get strikes, only self-rated players get strikes as I understand the system.

**Again, I believe that is because the only players who can be DQ'ed are self-rated players. I believe even if a computer-rated player was found to have dishonestly estimated his self-rating, once he or she has received a year-end computer-rating they can no long accumulate strikes and get DQed.

***I don't see where someone has responded to this but my understanding was that strikes were generated by winning individual sets with non-competitive scores (e.g. 6-0 or possibly 6-1) over computer-rated players. If this isn't the case, I wish someone who knows would enlighten me.

Outside the fact that there is no singles. I like the way Alta does it. It's real simple. You move with your team and be done with it. None of this calculating you beat this person on this day and didn't beat this one on that day nonesense.

Click to expand...

if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?

All of this "secret rating" stuff is what turns alot of people off to USTA, IMO.

Why not make the "rules" transparent?

There are always going to be guys who try and cheat the system. You might as well define the rules clearly and obviously.

A good example of a system that I think many folks think "works" is Ultimate Tennis (formerly known as "KSwiss").

A few cut and pastes from their rulebook------

Rating Calculation

Only matches that you complete in full against your assigned opponents count towards your player rating. Defaults, incomplete matches, retirements and averages do not represent your abilities and are removed from the rating calculation. Additionally, matches played against subs are removed because players can select their own subs and subs are not motivated to play as hard as if the match counted for them. The end result is a rating that shows a statistically pure picture of how competitive you are at your current skill level.

To calculate your rating - Find the difference in the league points earned between you and your opponent for each valid match. Sum the point difference and divide by the total number of valid matches. This is the number you see in the rating column on your standings page. During the season you will notice your rating will change after each match, and will not be finalized until the end of the season.

Sample Rating Calculation
Note: Week 3 is not factored into the rating due to a sub being used.

WK 1

WK 2

WK 3

WK 4

WK 5

WK 6

WK 7

Your Points

14

12

8P

4

14

12

12

Opponents Points

6

8

12S

14

8

7

8

Point Difference (rating)

+8

+4

N/A

-10

+6

+5

+4

17 is the total difference in points. 17 points divided by 6 valid matches equals a +2.8 end of season rating.

Scoring System

Our unique point system creates a playoff atmosphere all season long. Matches are more exciting, competitive and meaningful because every game counts.

You earn points based on the set scores of your matches. This encourages you to fight hard for every game and rewards you for close losses. Best of all, in the true spirit of tennis, no matter how far down you are you can always come back! Each season this creates exciting playoff point races that go down to the wire.

Our point system also dramatically improves the quality of your competition. You'll find our players will be competing at their appropriate level. Because our system measures the degree or strength of each win, skill levels can be adjusted with a far greater degree of accuracy. This produces a consistent level of competition which is the hallmark of Ultimate Tennis.

Point Calculations:
The winner receives: • 12 points for a 3 set win
• 14 points for a 2 set win
The loser receives:
One point for each game won in their two highest scoring sets. A player can receive up to a maximum of 8 points per match.

Regular Season
Move Up Requirements •If your rating is -5.4 to +5.4 you remain at your current level.
•If your rating is +5.5 to +9.9 you move up 1 level.
•If your rating is +10.0 or greater you move up 2 levels.
Move Down Requirements•If your rating is -5.5 to -9.9 you move down 1 level.
•If your rating is -10.0 or lower you move down 2 levels.
Move Down Exceptions•If you moved up to a new skill level in your last season of play and finished with a -5.5 rating or lower, you will remain at your current skill level. This rule is designed to allow your game to to adjust to the higher level of play.
•If you finished the season with a -5.5 rating or lower, but in the season prior earned a rating of -4.0 or higher, you will remain at your current level for one more season.

Playoff Move Up Requirements

If you advance to the following playoff rounds you will be moved up to the next highest skill level regardless of your end of season rating.
•Draw of 2 - champion moves up
•Draw of 4 - champion moves up
•Draw of 8 - champion moves up
•Draw of 16 - finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 32 - finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 64 - semi-finalist, finalist and champion move up
•Draw of 128 - semi-finalist, finalist and champion move up

if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?

Click to expand...

ALTA does a lousy job of rating individuals. THis is my single biggest issue with ALTA- a person who wins at line 1 is treated the same as someone from the same team who loses badly at line 5. (And in ALTA there is a rule that you do not play weaker lines over stronger lines)

That said- I STRONGLY prefer ALTA's way of forming a team. You can create at team from any 12 (or more) people you want and they place a team based on the 10 highest rated players. This makes team formation greatly easier. You can have players who once played in college playing on the same team with guys who started playing a few months ago. The team getting moved up in ALTA is natural and it comes out of team success so it is very tough to manipulate.

Compare that to the problem of getting bumped up in USTA. Either you have to move the entire team up to a level many do not belong at or else you need to leave the team and find a new group of players.

My ideal would be that they use ALTA's method of team formation but have more levels of team so that getting bumped an extra level wouldn't matter. But still have an individual rating and if a self rated player got DQ'd they would be ineligible for playoffs. But since 1 person's rating would only count as 10% of the team's rating there would be VERY little reason to underrate.

It doesnt prevent gaming at all. It just makes everything transparent. There are no "secret rules", etc. Its very easy to understand what one has to do to move up/down, etc.

If someone really really wants to game the system, as mentioned above, there isnt much that can be done about it. At least with a transparent system, everyone knows how to cheat equally! LOL

Click to expand...

USTA is pretty transparent as well. 98% of complains here is about 'people on other teams are gaming the system (i.e rated too low)' and 'a player on my team was rightly self-rated but got disqualified'.

Which is truly amazing. How is that so hard to arrange a match with a computer rated player, ask him to play as best as he can, buy him a six-packs for his time/effort and the second one if he wins, and at the and of two our exercise you will have a pretty accurate idea of your level. There's really no more/less to it. Folks spent much more time trying to fit one's skills into USTA guidelines while playing a single match would solve your self-rating issue.

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

Click to expand...

No one here really knows ...and I have not read through the next 30 posts so maybe this has been hashed out already.

But my understanding was that when your dynamic rating exceeded a threshold you earned a strike. So by getting your dynamic rating down at the starts helps you at the end.

I have seen e-mails to DQ'd folks where their third strike is actually not an impressive performance yet they still get DQ'd. Presumably this is because they are still over the threshold even though that individual match in an of itself would not have earned a strike..

*Computer-rated and Benchmarked players do not get strikes, only self-rated players get strikes as I understand the system.

**Again, I believe that is because the only players who can be DQ'ed are self-rated players. I believe even if a computer-rated player was found to have dishonestly estimated his self-rating, once he or she has received a year-end computer-rating they can no long accumulate strikes and get DQed.

***I don't see where someone has responded to this but my understanding was that strikes were generated by winning individual sets with non-competitive scores (e.g. 6-0 or possibly 6-1) over computer-rated players. If this isn't the case, I wish someone who knows would enlighten me.

Click to expand...

Point 2 ... Anyone without a B or C rating can get DQ'd ... this includes self rated, appealed and mixed exclusive ratings.

Point 3 .... Assuming an individual match does generate strikes a set score in an of itself does not indicate a strike. If you beat a very low on level player 0 and 1 you are probably not going to get a strike. However if you beat a top of level player 3 and 3, that probably is strike worthy.

Now, if the system works how I suspect it does in that they use you rolling dynamic rating ... then any score could earn you a strike if you get your rolling average high enough.

Now, if the system works how I suspect it does in that they use you rolling dynamic rating ... then any score could earn you a strike if you get your rolling average high enough.

Click to expand...

Given your understanding that it is the rolling dynamic rating exceeding the threshold, you can't generate a strike until your first rolling dynamic rating is calculated after 3 matches? Note I don't think this is the case as I believe there are cases of players being DQ'd in 3 or 4 matches, which is another reason I believe it is the match rating, not the rolling rating, that is used for DQs. Or perhaps it is the match rating that is used for the first few matches as a rolling dynamic is established?

Given your understanding that it is the rolling dynamic rating exceeding the threshold, you can't generate a strike until your first rolling dynamic rating is calculated after 3 matches? Note I don't think this is the case as I believe there are cases of players being DQ'd in 3 or 4 matches, which is another reason I believe it is the match rating, not the rolling rating, that is used for DQs. Or perhaps it is the match rating that is used for the first few matches as a rolling dynamic is established?

Click to expand...

I suspect they use individual matches until a dolling dynamic is created ... but again who knows.

IF I were the USTA ... I would choose to use a combination of the two. In my world strikes could be generated for individual match results or for getting the rolling dynamic ratings staying above the threshold for multiple matches.

I don't think it is based on individual match results because so few players ever end up being DQ'd.

Sure, my simple explanation is this. If you know that you are a 3.0 player, then don't go getting on a a-2 team. The rules are transparent as some are saying they want. You know right now if you make the playoffs at a-4, you are going to be a minimum of A-3 next season. If you jump teams you will carry that A-3 ranking to another team. That team knows it can be moved up if you play a level lower than A-3.

It's better than this current USTA system...you could be bumped if "you play on the first tuesday of the month and you play a player that had Ihop pancakes for breakfast..that is unless he had steak 2 nights earlier and there was a full moon that night." The point is no one knows what the hell is going on with USTA. What the lady told me back then may have been complete horse ****, but there was nothing we could do about it. They had already gotten our money...and don't let me get started on that.

You pay one 25 dollar fee or something a year with Alta....it's something like 40 bucks for Usta then you have all the bs league fees that come with it. Do I need to keep going?

if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?

Hold on now spot...I don't think there is a rule keeping you from playing stronger players lower than weaker players. What they have is some anti sandbagging rule that keeps you from moving players up and down the lineup but teams can easily set up a lineup where it is just the opposite of what you think it should be or basically start your strength in the middle. I've seen teams win city like this. They don't play their strongest team at 1. I've seen some that play their strongest team at 3. That could insure you get to 4 and 5.

However, there is no rule stating you can't play stronger players behind weaker players. How would you police that?

ALTA does a lousy job of rating individuals. THis is my single biggest issue with ALTA- a person who wins at line 1 is treated the same as someone from the same team who loses badly at line 5. (And in ALTA there is a rule that you do not play weaker lines over stronger lines)

That said- I STRONGLY prefer ALTA's way of forming a team. You can create at team from any 12 (or more) people you want and they place a team based on the 10 highest rated players. This makes team formation greatly easier. You can have players who once played in college playing on the same team with guys who started playing a few months ago. The team getting moved up in ALTA is natural and it comes out of team success so it is very tough to manipulate.

Compare that to the problem of getting bumped up in USTA. Either you have to move the entire team up to a level many do not belong at or else you need to leave the team and find a new group of players.

My ideal would be that they use ALTA's method of team formation but have more levels of team so that getting bumped an extra level wouldn't matter. But still have an individual rating and if a self rated player got DQ'd they would be ineligible for playoffs. But since 1 person's rating would only count as 10% of the team's rating there would be VERY little reason to underrate.

USTA is pretty transparent as well. 98% of complains here is about 'people on other teams are gaming the system (i.e rated too low)' and 'a player on my team was rightly self-rated but got disqualified'.

Which is truly amazing. How is that so hard to arrange a match with a computer rated player, ask him to play as best as he can, buy him a six-packs for his time/effort and the second one if he wins, and at the and of two our exercise you will have a pretty accurate idea of your level. There's really no more/less to it. Folks spent much more time trying to fit one's skills into USTA guidelines while playing a single match would solve your self-rating issue.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent method IMO. This is actually the preferred method for getting a UT rating.....they desire you to play a qualifying match against a known player. The results of that match, or matches, can be used to determine the level of a player new to the league.

This can still be "gamed" of course......but at least it's an attempt at objectivity.

Sure, my simple explanation is this. If you know that you are a 3.0 player, then don't go getting on a a-2 team. The rules are transparent as some are saying they want. You know right now if you make the playoffs at a-4, you are going to be a minimum of A-3 next season. If you jump teams you will carry that A-3 ranking to another team. That team knows it can be moved up if you play a level lower than A-3.

It's better than this current USTA system...you could be bumped if "you play on the first tuesday of the month and you play a player that had Ihop pancakes for breakfast..that is unless he had steak 2 nights earlier and there was a full moon that night." The point is no one knows what the hell is going on with USTA. What the lady told me back then may have been complete horse ****, but there was nothing we could do about it. They had already gotten our money...and don't let me get started on that.

You pay one 25 dollar fee or something a year with Alta....it's something like 40 bucks for Usta then you have all the bs league fees that come with it. Do I need to keep going?

Click to expand...

I don't think its as bad as you say it is. There is one self rated year where you can get dqed in the season and then everything is fine. This might suck if you should be in that division, but from the cases I have seen in my short league time this is actually rare. There are far more cases where a captain gets a player to self rate down 2 levels for a winning team. There seems to be a lot of gaming, but this is one thing which I don't think is that unfair.

Outside the fact that there is no singles. I like the way Alta does it. It's real simple. You move with your team and be done with it. None of this calculating you beat this person on this day and didn't beat this one on that day nonesense.

if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?

Sure, my simple explanation is this. If you know that you are a 3.0 player, then don't go getting on a a-2 team. The rules are transparent as some are saying they want. You know right now if you make the playoffs at a-4, you are going to be a minimum of A-3 next season. If you jump teams you will carry that A-3 ranking to another team. That team knows it can be moved up if you play a level lower than A-3.

Click to expand...

Rather than arguing here I'm going to refer you to this blog;http://atlanta-tennis.blogspot.com/2011/05/altas-rating-system.html
Perhaps you've seen it. There's no way you can convince anybody that individual ranking that is based on team's performance and not on one's own play is more accurate. This would be as if all player's on a given Davis Cup team were ranked the same, according to how far the team advanced.

It's better than this current USTA system...you could be bumped if "you play on the first tuesday of the month and you play a player that had Ihop pancakes for breakfast..that is unless he had steak 2 nights earlier and there was a full moon that night." The point is no one knows what the hell is going on with USTA. What the lady told me back then may have been complete horse ****, but there was nothing we could do about it. They had already gotten our money...and don't let me get started on that.

Click to expand...

What you conveniently fail to mention is:
- you run risk of DQ only if you are self-rated.
- you are going to be DQ if you are self-rated --and-- you beat someone with match proven ranking (that happens to be similar to the one you assigned to yourself) by a score that strongly indicates it was not a competitive match. And to take into account bad luck/illness/and other one-time occurrences it needs to happen three times in a single season. I fail to see how that is unfair.

Or, as a player, you might as well just play as well as you can every time you step onto the court, not worry about rating stuff at all, and let the computer do its thing.

The guys who are going to try cheat the system will find a way to do that no matter what the system is.

For the rest of us, just play. If you come across a sandbagger, just view it as an opportunity to test yourself against a stronger player.

Click to expand...

OrangePower seems wise beyond his years.

Many of us including me get irritated at the Self-Rated sandbaggers or cheaters, but OrangePower is right.
They will never stop appearing, especially in the playoffs.

Could the USTA do better ? Seems so. I read a lot of great ideas from people on this forum, such as weighted lines,

I feel like Don Quixote when trying to fight these windmills. There is nothing to lose against these players except your composure and respect of your teammates. Not worth this. Play the match, shake hands and move on.